Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday August 30, 2011 @05:25AM
from the how-could-george-bush-do-such-a-thing dept.

littlekorea writes "Cables leaked by Wikileaks have revealed that the U.S. Government actively pressured the EU Competition Commissioner to approve Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems. The cable reveals that the U.S. went to great lengths to discover how the competition commissioner felt about the 'pro-competitive' nature of open source software and whether this would represent a threat to the US$7.4 billion deal."

US Government has also decided that MS Windows monopoly is good (for US). It does not matter if technical development is halted by the monopoly as long as it brings taxes to US.And US was the "market economy" which has grown from competitive freedom of markets. Well, if you control whole world, why bother to care about free markets and competition.

From the link: "The Japanese government planned to introduce the Matsushita PC in its schools, but the United States government objected, claiming that the plan constituted market intervention and threatened Japan with sanctions (partly at the request of Microsoft)."

I've seen a BTRON machine and it was impressive, easily better than Windows of the era. It should be noted that BTRON was an open OS and was developed by a group of companies who had a mutually vested interest. It lives on however as iTRON, which is the OS in things like car control systems, washing machine fuzzy logic controllers, refrigerators, TV's, cell phones etc. Next time you pop open something and find a chip with "Renesas" printed on it you can probably assume it's got iTRON on it.

It is when the US Gov forces Genetically Modified food down everyone's throat [truth-out.org], often in the face of overwhelming democratic opposition to them - even in some cases the political elite objecting (See this India cable [cablegatesearch.net]: "Very serious fears [...] of Monsanto controlling our food chain"), that things start to get really questionable.

Totally agree. I am tired of having to walk across the village every day to get water. Worst of all we can barely invade, destroy, and control two third world countries on the other side of the globe any more Sad really to see a great country on the edge of ruin. Back in the day we used to be able to just impose our will on the rest of the world, but now those brown skinned cretins want to exercise their own free will, The ungrateful vermin.

But on the other hand, they are working hard on the latter. With this difference that Somali communication infrastructure will still be better.

The difference between a first and a third world nation is not the average income, that changes quickly. It is the infrastructure: road, rail sanitation, power, communication. But also the bureaucracy and the education of the population.

People who want no/small government are exactly asking for third world infrastructure.

What America needs now is an old dude to assume the role of high church office so that America can officially become a religious state. They can then live off the proceeds offered by the superstitious tourists.

I mean when you have a great Empire that implodes on itself after having succumbed to military spending insanity, what's left to do when everything goes to shit?

What America needs now is an old dude to assume the role of high church office so that America can officially become a religious state

You may laugh, but that's what a Rick Perry Presidency promises.

They can then live off the proceeds offered by the superstitious tourists.

Unfortunately, most of those tourists won't have a lot of money, as they will be coming from third-world shitholes just like ours. In the meantime, the advanced and developed nations will continue to work on social and economic progress, i

While there is always a segment of the American population who believes 'that the end is right around the corner', if only for religious beliefs, it always seems that there are many more of them after a economic crisis. We're Americans, we always get though it, yet, even after 8 strait quarters of admittedly weak GDP growth, but growth none the less, many are still beating the drums of crisis.

Maybe for you the American dream is over, but for most of us it's chugging along.

Unless you are able to turn around the trade deficit you will slowly lose the strength of the US economy. The trade deficit is paid for in different ways - often in US bound assets - properties and shares in various companies.

Imagine the surprise if one day a company like Apple suddenly is owned by foreign owners and they decide to move the HQ to Taiwan or Hong Kong.

I love US grammar and spelling, don't you? It somewhat sets the tone for the view on Americans in general.

Let us put it this way, with a debt load of I believe 85% of your GDP it's only a matter of time. The US will default especially with given the political climate you are in now. No compromise, no new taxes, etc. Where do you think you will get the money to pay off the debt based off your GDP?

Face it, Gilligan and Cheney drove the US into the ground with the over spending. Now the recession they created only makes it work because the more you spend to get out of it the more you put yourselves in the hole. It sucks as nobody wants to see it happen but you can only go on for so long.

I love it when non-Americans denigrate the US while using American slang and alluding to American television.

Tax the rich marginally more and all our dept problems go away. I don't understand how these so-called 'fiscally conservative' ever bought into the thing that caused our structural debt, the Bush tax cuts.

I love US grammar and spelling, don't you? It somewhat sets the tone for the view on Americans in general

They've always said that we were boorish, but they do love our grad schools, movies, and might.

Oh, wait, that not some European snob, who dares insult 'Americans in general', but seemingly one of those 'high-brow conservatives'. Newt? is that you? If so then stop trying to take credit for the Clinton su

The thing is though, simply taxing the rich more won't make all the problems magically go away. The top 10% already account for about 70% of all income tax paid (source [taxfoundation.org]). The real problem is with how badly the government mismanages it's money. Give the government more money and they'll just find more contractors to overpay. I agree that the rich could probably pay a bit more in taxes, but the problem is with how the government is spending the money, not how much money it has.

The fact that I get taxed at a higher rate overall than Warren Buffett, sorta trumps that view.

One should also note that those within the top 5% have 70% of the money, and I'm sure that every dime of it is working for them. Combine that with your numbers, and I think it shows the the rich aren't paying nearly enough.

Do you really think that 'tax the poor', or 'cut granny benefits for Social Security' is somehow a winning strategy for the GOP. Anything to avo

Do you really think that 'tax the poor', or 'cut granny benefits for Social Security' is somehow a winning strategy for the GOP. Anything to avoid taxing the rich marginally more, wow.

Guess you didn't read the part where I said the rich could be taxed more. You just jumped into some pre-prepared rant, attacking a group I'm not even a part of. You most likely only read far enough to see that I didn't 100% agree with you and barfed that reply out as quickly as possible.

You are probably completely right about the top 10% accounting for at least 70% of the income, in fact I bet it's more than 70%. I want to reiterate that I think the rich should be taxed more, but that won't suddenly

Spending discipline is definitely required. So are higher taxes on the wealthy.

The 0th step needs to be removing corporate and unlimited direct campaign contributions.Then we can have democracy again, and not plutarchy. Political office should not be a matter of who has the most money, but who has the best ideas, and real support.

Actually, I don't know anyone who argues that position. The Tax Foundation, while a nonprofit, can be considered a "business friendly" think tank, but it's hard to dispute its positions when they're based on plain math. [taxfoundation.org] According to that link, Warren Buffet's tax proposals would barely scratch the national debt (and I've never heard even Buffet claim that his proposals would erase the debt).

Back in the 80's analysts were noting that Russian ships were heading out to sea on their normal rotation. In the 90's the Russians were more concerned with generating hard cash than funding the military, as the soviet union had collapsed by then. I don't think that we are quite at that point, but if you think that we are, then you should consider that Russia is in better fiscal shape now.

I've never seen so much FUD pushed around about America in my entire life, it sickens me that most of it is coming as

Why shouldn't the US Government have an interest in a third parties decision affecting two large US companies? I don't get the issue here, to me the "outrage" that this story puts forward seems forced and misused.

Why shouldn't the US Government have an interest in a third parties decision affecting two large US companies?

The problem is not that the US Government has an interest. The problem is they are encouraging the wrong side of the argument.

The fact that anti-trust laws are being ignored at this level is the best example that our government has been completely co-opted by corporate interests. We are no longer a country for the people. Now we are a country for the corporations.

Nonsense. This is an utter falsehood. Sun and Oracle's markets were by no stretch of the imagination "non overlapping".

You had the problems of excessive vertical integration as well as one direct rival swallowing another. This deal undermined the level of useful diversity in both the enterprise operating systems and RDBMS space. It also impacted a large number of other software projects and led to patent issues. It directly led to collateral damage in a seemingly unrelated market with patent litigation over Java.

The EU should no more pass judgement over the merger of US corporations than the US should over merger of EU corporations. The only time they should both be involved is if there is a cross border merger, period.

Lobbying isn't that bad. USA officials had arrived to one conclusion, felt that the issue was very important to them and communicated that to EU officials. Regular co-operative communication between officials of two political bodies. If EU officials then arrived to a result which (considering all things, including any political capital gained or lost) was bad for us as EU citizens, then our own officials are to blame. Personally, I don't think that they did and there is nothing in TFA that implies otherwise.

In other words, the cables show that EU and USA officials of corresponding organizations actually communicate with each other when handling international issues. Nothing to see here.

I agree - except that it should not have come out via Wikileaks. The US is entitled to lobby on behalf of two large US corporations which have decided to merge. But is should do so in the open - as should all lobbyists.

It's funny that of the top three comments I see two almost robotically-identical opinions that there's nothing to see here, please move along.

Almost as if you're being paid to downplay this issue. The merger of two large companies is almost always accompanied by job losses in the industry. No, check that, I dare you to find ONE instance of a merger on this scale that didn't lead to widespread job destruction. It wasn't in the USA's best interest to let this merger go through -- it was in ORACLE'S best in

Doubtful. SGI was in worse shape for much longer and got through 2 bankruptcies before being bought ( cheaply ) by Rackable Systems which has since rebranded itself as SGI. They would have had to slash staff but they had plenty of valuable tech and still a few really big customers.

A country debates with another country to preserve it's interests.Has Wikileaks released anything really informative?

Here are their big leaks.1. The military during war isn't always the most upstanding group of people and wrong people get killed, and the government doesn't like to tell you that. Duh ask any veteran they will tell you the same thing.

2. Diplomats and leaders are a bunch of selfish pompous hypocritical jerks. They are still human. And they are humans with extra power, so yea. If you didn't kn

I think Wikileaks would be out to screw China too if they laid their hands on as many classified documents. Of course China would probably take the Russian approach to such disclosures and murder some people to make a point.

Actually, I would argue that the cables are very much in favour of the US. Indeed, when your foreign office is the one making the news and your memos presented as analyses, then really, you are spreading your viewpoint about the world.

Of course, most people don't know what it is diplomats do. They probably assume their job is to go to dinners and eat. But that is really only the surface:)

As for the before/after thing it is mostly a change of tactic: the videos had very little impact, despite being some of

what would happen if they said no? At a guess the EU subsidiaries of each company could not merge but the US ones could. In practice this would mean that the EU subsidiaries would probably have to separate from the combined company, probably with rights to patents and copyright for their previous products in the EU. This would be a mess for everyone, the EU left with subsidiaries with rights that have no future development, and the USA base having rights outside the EU, being able to develop, but losing EU

I don't think it would change much which is why it is dumb for the EU to try and regulate it. OK, so they can't merge in the EU, but they are both American based companies, so if they are merged in the US, then both EU companies can just send profits back to the unified US company.

I am certain that it is against company law to "just send" money somewhere. They will have to protect their shareholder's investments.

No, all international profits are usually kept off-shore because repatriation of those profits would be taxed at usual rates. Trying to bring the money back to the US without paying taxes would be massive tax fraud (at least compared to the tax fraud that these companies normally do). Thus, companies actively advocate for "repatriation holidays [nytimes.com]," which are nothing more than corporate tax breaks.

It's common not to "repatriate" (I'm not sure if this is the right word in English) profits. Often the money is held by a subsidiary on a tax friendly country. It can't be used to pay dividends to shareholders but is often kept as a "cushion" for hard times or for paying international acquisitions and investments. Microsoft itself, at least a while back, held a large sum of money outside the US, through a Caribbean subsidiary if I recall correctly. I think there was an article here on/. about it, but I'm n

What they don't understand (refuse to see), is that market fundamentalism leads to powerful corporate institutions that can wield this type of influence. "Too big to fail" is a symptom of not enough regulation, and so is "government of the corporation, for the corporation, and by the corporation".

Interesting that Hayek, the intellectual founder of modern republican voodoo-economics, saw the role of government limited to breaking up concentrat

This sort of thing is exactly what diplomats do. They lobby other countries to take actions perceived as favorable for their own country. There is no evidence here of threats, extortion, or arm twisting. Just diplomacy.

Lobbying is NOT a type of corruption. When grandma writes a letter to her local politician complaining about this or that, she is lobbying. When a politician sells his ear at a $5k per head dinner, that is (legalised) corruption.

I agree with your post, as I said lobbying is not a type of corruption, it simply means "petition the government". However corruption of the lobbying process is routine, particularly in the US where campaign funds regularly determine the outcome of elections. With such ubiquitous corruption of the process, it's easy to see why people think lobbying = corruption.

BTW: A corporation represents their shareholders with their consent, it does not represent it's workers, although it may falsely claim to do so.

Do you think that the US' actions during the overthrow of Chile's President Allende and the imposition of a dictatorship was "no pressure"? Or its actions in Iran just before the Shah was put into power? Or its attempts to overthrow Fidel Castro? And just why do you suppose we went to all the bother of overthrowing Sadam Hussein when there really were no "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; and we knew it?

The "no pressure" from the USA is always - ALWAYS - applied with the sure and certain knowledge that we have

The government acts precisely because it thinks a favourable outcome will make more money. Lobbying and bribery are not the same thing, despite the perception to the contrary. If all they needed to do was bribe someone the rich, and large corporations would never need the government. Diplomacy is trying to convince the other guy this is in his interest, and maybe throwing in some incentive to sweeten the deal (possibilities: you allow this 7 billion merger we'll allow on from your side without fuss, yo

I always wonder what is meant when news stories write that some government official "pressured" another government's official. This part that is edited out or never pursued is quite important to understand what really happened.

The United States was founded by corporations. The declaration of independence was done because Britain wanted to eliminate (some) tax breaks for big corps. It's no wonder the corps chose a form of government that would champion their interests (and it has).

Because they wish to do business in the EU, you know, the biggest economy in the world.

Europe's opinion matters because not being able to do business in such a large economy would make it pointless to procede with the takeover anyway as they'd have been better off not taking over Sun and keeping their EU business than taking over Sun and being ineligible to do business in the EU.

It's worth pointing out it's a two way street too. BAE, a British defence firm, bribed Saudi officials to get an aircraft deal, but despite them being a British company and the deal being with Saudi Arabia and hence having nothing to do with the US, the US still fined the company and BAE accepted and paid the fine because it'd rather continue to be able to do business in the US, with by far the largest military expenditure in the world, than not pay the fine and not be able to do business in the US.

This is the thing with an increasingly globalised world, companies are responsible for their actions wherever they do business, not just where they were founded or are headquartered- if you want to take European money, you need to play by European rules.

The companies are based in the US, so the EU ultimately does not have that much say.

EU has the say - it can refuse to recognize Sun and Oracle as two separate entities if they're factually a single corporation in US (this does not in any way relate to EU jurisdiction - it doesn't have to limit itself to matters of fact that are only available on EU soil), and then refuse that entity the right to do business in EU so long as it is non-complying with the regulations.

Realistically most of the EMEA income is from the EU, just like most of the Americas income is from the US.

What you're suggesting is that they dump 32% of their revenue from day to day.

Some of that will be offset by laying off 22,394 employees in the EMEA, but that only makes up 20% of their total number of employees. Compare that to the 45,887 employees in the Americas.

The EMEA is a more profitable area for Oracle than the Americas from a pure income/employee point of view (514,000 vs 400,000 dollars)

But if we ignore the financial consequences, the competitive consequences of giving your main rivals 11 billion dollars a year and the sheer idiocy of believing that you shouldn't have to live up to the rules of the countries you operate in, then yeah - you have a really good idea there.

Go for it - I'm sure you'll have a lot of success at Oracle's next shareholders meeting.

It's not as simple as that. Most of the development for eg MySQL is done in Europe, and the resulting product is sold all over the world. The reverse is true for some of their other products. Development costs would be the same if they lost the European market. Since some of the products are owned by European subsidiaries they have bought over the years, they might end up losing them completely. They provide 24/7 access to tech support by having offices in different time zones, so if someone wants help

For that to work, you'd need to split both Oracle and Sun into separate companies in the EU (i.e. Oracle EU and Oracle Global) and in such a fashion that they aren't just shell corporations (and legislators tend to really antsy when you set up shell corporations to try to weasel your way out of things you don't want).

And if you do that, you'd inevitably end up in situations where Oracle World and Oracle EU are bidding on the same contracts, making them compete against each other. I'm pretty sure that'd be a

Mysql put their client libraries under the GPL. By common intepretations of the GPL if you link against a GPL library you have to release your program under the GPL. So if you want to develop propietry apps linked againstthe mysql client you had to buy a commerical license for mysql. IIRC at one stage they were even trying to claim that the GPL applied to the wire protocol (so even if you rewrote the client libs you weren't in the clear according to them) dunno if they still are. So yes you can fork it but

Maybe when Oracle immediately stopped all development on OpenSolaris after acquiring Sun? Maybe when Oracle immediately screwed the OpenOffice project (which is why it was forked to LibreOffice)? Oracle and Sun competed in several markets from enterprise servers to RDBMS systems.

It also has had far-reaching consequences for anyone using Java (just ask Apache about Oracle). As someone posted earlier:

You had the problems of excessive vertical integration as well as one direct rival swallowing another. This deal undermined the level of useful diversity in both the enterprise operating systems and RDBMS space. It also impacted a large number of other software projects and led to patent issues. It directly led to collateral damage in a seemingly unrelated market with patent litigation over Java.

As much as I dislike Apple I actually like that idea. It would have been like the second coming of NeXT but this time with a big set of technologies and unmatched marketing power. I would have liked to see that.